Subject: Re: Utter Futility of Arguing With Creationists
From: janet@netcom.com (Janet M. Lafler)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 05:29:27 GMT
Terran@pwshift.com (Terran) wrote:
>> > As to the
>> > difference between theory and fact? My understanding was it was
>> > proof.
Matt Austern wrote:
>> Well, that's one way to define the difference; it's a rather
>> unconventional way to define it, but that's OK. The big problem,
>> though is that it begs the question of just what "proof" means.
>>
>> Given this definition, for example, I can't tell whether the following
>> statements are facts, theories, both, or neither:
[most of list deleted]
>
>> The first people in North America arrived here somewhere between
>> 10 and 20 thousand years ago.
Not a theory currently expounded by any archaeologist I know of. The con-
sensus seems to be that humans first arrived in North America between 35,000
and 50,000 years ago, though some will argue that it happened as long ago as
70,000 years ago.
Quibbling aside, I think Matt's point is well-taken: "proof" is a slippery
and ill-defined concept outside of mathematics; and in mathematics, of course,
it is only possible when you work from assumptions -- axioms -- that are
independent of proof. Very little of what we know can be proven; that's the
nature of knowledge.
/Janet
--
janet@netcom.com
"When poverty is more disgraceful than even vice, is not morality cut to
the quick?" -- Mary Wollstonecraft, _A Vindication of the Rights of Women_
Subject: Tentative definition of God (was Re: Creation VS Evolution)
From: Leonard Timmons
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 02:35:17 -0400
I have to agree with the post on changing titles.
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
> In article <322BB966.1B14@mindspring.com>, Leonard Timmons writes:
> >meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> >> In article <3227B6F5.D2C@mindspring.com>, Leonard Timmons writes:
> >> >So if we cannot devise a test to prove or disprove the existence
> >> >of God, then theism and atheism are equivalent in that they are
> >> >both based on pure conjecture.
> >>
> >> I think we agree here. That's why I'm not saying "I don't believe in
> >> God" but "I believe there is no God". There is a subtle difference.
> >
> >I think I understand this difference. In the first assertion you admit
> >the existence of God, but see no sense in following him. In the second,
> >you assert that a supernatural being as defined above does not exist.
> >It is not possibe even in theory that you could be proved wrong.
> >
> Right. But there is something more in the second phrase, something
> which I would call an expression of humility (no snickers, please).
> It is an admission of lack of certainty or, if you prefer, of the
> certainty that I'm not certain and can never be.
>
> >However, when I defined God as the natural laws of the universe as
> >above, does your assertion change in any way? Or do you simply reject
> >my definition as specious?
>
> No, I don't reject it, I can't. I can just say that when we reach
> this stage, if we don't want to play in semantics (and I'm sure that
> this is not your intention) these issues become a matter of inner
> convictions, which are personal.
> >
> >> >The only way we could know whether
> >> >a supernatural being exists is if we were (at least in some way)
> >> >the supernatural beings in the universe. Then we would know
> >> >that there is no one beside us (I have read this in the Bible
> >> >somewhere, too).
> >>
> >> Yep, I think that logically that's the most that can be said.
> >
> >By the way, I am now going to assert that we are partly supernatural,
> >so it is possible for us to know whether God exists, since we have a
> >supernatural nature just as God does.
>
> Well, good you put this "partly" there as an escape hatch, else I
> would argue that a supernatural being would've the knowledge of being
> supernatural and I don't have such knowledge. But then, maybe just
> the ability to think about such issues is supernatural.
....................................................................
Let me see if I can pull these threads together: This one and the
"God for mathematicians" thread.
From God for mathematicians:
> ... some of the deep
> and fundamental properties of the world around us have been accessible since
> ancient times. It is unreasonable to believe that someone like Moses (whom
> I believe has to be one of the true geniuses of all history) did not
> discover what they are. I think that he wrote them down in these viciously
> difficult riddles so that when they are discovered again, folks will know
> that he was there first.
Ok, the riddles are probably a cultural thing or exist for some other
reason which I have speculated on in the past. I call them riddles
because they are just too hard to be called proverbs.
From further up in this thread:
> > +I just attributed these qualities to the laws of nature.
> >
> > Then I would expect some slight justification for your doing so.
> > Or is this another exercise in arbitrary projection of your notions
> > onto reality?
> Not quite arbitrary. It took us all of a week or so to come to a
> point in this discussion that folks could have come to literally
> thousands of years ago. Nothing new has been introduced. Notice
> how easy it was to dispense with Gφedel's theorem. It tells
> us something basic about rule based systems. Namely that the
> rules are not a part of the system and it is pretty easy to come
> up with new rules. These new rules don't have to completely
> change the system, they can just extend it a little. In fact, you
> can continue adding rules indefinitely _without changing the basic
> nature_ of the rule based system.
> If we define an object and some operators that act on those objects,
> then from the objects' perspective: The operators are present
> everywhere (by definition since they would be the axioms). If an
> operator acts on an object, the object is powerless to prevent
> itself from being transformed in the manner specified by the
> operator. [The operator] is all powerful. Since an operator can
> apply itself (I am assuming an absence of people to apply the
> operators, they must act on their own) to any member of the set of
> objects, it must be aware of every member of the (possibly inifinte)
> set. [The operator] is all seeing. Any more complex operator must be
> decomposible into the fundamental operators (they are the axioms)
> so the axioms "know" all the theorems that they can produce. Ok,
> this last one is not quite right, but you understand what I mean.
The previous two sentences are not right, but if you replace the word
"know" by "understand," then it is correct. I just put in the last
sentence to annoy Michael L. Siemon since he says that he is a
mathematician. I couldn't resist, sorry.
If we assert that the natural laws of the universe are the axioms of
the universe and that they are operators that act on the fundamental
objects of the universe, then I believe that we have arrived at a
conclusion reached thousands of years ago by Moses and others. They
called this collection of rules that define our existence "God."
They noted the presence of God everywhere and went on at length
about it. They noted how objects in the world could not resist
the rules that defined their behavior. They then commented at
length on the almighty power of God. They noted how a rule
would act at a place and time that was appropriate for it to
act and reasoned that it must be there "observing" the goings
on so that it could act. God was therefore all seeing.
More importantly, they noted that some rules were more complex
combinations of simpler rules. They then used the word "understand"
to denote the relationship between these rules. In effect, they said
that theorems are "understood" by the axioms on which they are based.
This is not an unreasonable use of the word "understand" because if
you really want to understand a theorem, you must know its
relationship to the axioms. We say that we understand the world
better than our predecessors because we know the relationship
between the complexities that we see in everyday life and the
"fundamental" particles and forces that compose it.
When we look at the world around us, we see a myriad of
interconnecting complex rules. It is my opinion that Moses
took these to be fundamental and pre-existing. There are an
infinity of these rules that have always existed and will always
exist. God (the axioms), from Moses' point of view, extracts
himself (themselves) from this collection of rules. He (God)
then rules over this collection of rules which in turn control
the world around us. However, there are always rules which God
has not yet understood (the extraction process is not yet
complete). When the axioms are extracted from this collection
of rules, God enlarges himself. To Moses, this is what God has
been doing and will be doing throughout eternity: understanding
the universe.
Note that God is fundamental and pre-existing, but is not
complete. In fact, God is busy completing himself. This is
his purpose. From our point of view, God is a collection of
axioms that seek to understand (decompose into the axioms) the
entirety of the universe of pre-existing theorems (rules).
I am asserting that this is the God that Moses defines in
Genesis. That he wraps up this God concept in riddles as
the wise men of his time were obliged to do. And that this
basic "God property" of seeking to understand the world
around us makes us God-like in Moses' eyes. In mine, too.
God finds axioms by a process I will call discernment. This
is a process of _separation_ of dissimilar things into those
that are more similar. Rules can then be found for the
behavior of similar things. If God is lucky, he will find
something that he cannot understand. He will then increase
himself by making that thing a part of himself. This process
of separation of things in a mixture into purer forms begins
in Genesis and ends in Revelation. Discernment is central
to this concept of God.
The importance of discernment (as separation) is so important
that it is at the very Beginning. This separation theme begins
with the separation of light from darkness in Genesis 1:1 (day
1) and ends with the separation of light from darkness in
Genesis 1:18 (day 4). In between these we see additional
separations of things which we can't imagine were actually
mixed together (hint: this is a riddle/parable). After
separation, names can be applied because the properties of
the extractants are more consistent.
After reaching this point it is a simple matter to enlarge
Moses's definition of God and say that God *IS*
understanding. Understanding is God. The folks in the
Bible then find thousands of ways to say this. The
prophets say "The word of the LORD came to me..." Others
simply say that God (understanding) spoke to them. Solomon
comes as close as anyone to actually coming right out
and stating the equivalence. He says, "The LORD founded
the earth by wisdom; He established the heavens by
understanding; By His knowlege the depths burst apart, and
the skies distilled dew."
Since we have understanding, then God is within us. We
are a part of this collection of axioms which seeks to
discover the nature of the rules of the universe. We are
created in God's image in this respect. We seek to do
the same things God does.
Now, all of this takes a new turn when we get to the new
testament and Jesus. Jesus fits into this definition of
God as insight. Jesus is the personification of insight.
Insight is the thing that happens to you when you have
poured over some data or problem for a long time and
sudenly a light turns on inside and understanding
suddenly rushes into your brain. Insight is the way
to understanding. Jesus says, "I am the way, the
truth and the life, no man comes to the Father
[understanding] but by me." By implication he is
asking, "Who/what am I."
You understand things by getting insight into them.
Sometimes the insight is small; at other times it is
large. When Jesus meets Paul and blinds him, this
is a clear indication of a massive "Ahah!" reaction.
Paul understood something. At pentecost when the
disciples were praying in the upper room, a flame
appeared above the heads of each one after many hours
of prayer. You don't have to be a genius to note the
similarity of this event to the common place notion
of drawing an illuminated light bulb above the head
of a person that has just had an insight. And again,
at the second coming Jesus flashes across the heavens
in an instant from east to west.
Now, is the the concept of discernment really any
different from that of insight? Slightly.
Discernment allows you to separate things, though
incompletely. After an insight, which allows you
to understand the "true" distinctions between
objects, you can perform a complete separation
of two dissimilar things. It is this triad:
discernment, insight, and understanding that is
responsible for the trinity concept associated
with many christain religions.
From this you may conclude correctly that prayer
is simply another name for thinking. Worship is
a simple matter of doing what you know is right.
Faith is just another word for understanding (my,
but did these folks love to invent multiple words
for the same thing and pretend that they were
different).
So I am asserting that this definition of God is
the one that Moses intended and was used for
thousands of years. Yet we misunderstood the
definition (with a lot of help) and invented a
concept of God that was not intended by Moses
(and makes much less sense).
-leonard
BTW, solving a riddle usually results from some
insight. Maybe this is why they were used so
much.
Subject: M.L. Jordan reappointed to U.S. Federal Mine Safety and Review Commi
From: ndallen@io.org
Date: 03 Sep 1996 20:57:13
Subject: M.L. Jordan reappointed to U.S. Federal Mine Safety and Review Commission
From: ndallen@io.org (Nigel Allen)
Here is a press release from the White House.
I found the press release on the U.S. Newswire BBS in Maryland
at (410) 363-0834. I do not work for the U.S. government.
Clinton Names Jordan to Federal Mine Safety and Health Review
Commission
Contact: White House Press Office, 202-456-2100
WASHINGTON, Sept. 3 /U.S. Newswire/ -- President Clinton
announced today the reappointment of Mary Lucille Jordan as
Chair and Member of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review
Commission. Ms. Jordan will serve as a recess appointee. Ms.
Jordan was renominated on May 1, 1996 and her nomination is
pending before the Senate.
Mary Lucille Jordan of Takoma Park, Md., has served as Chair
and Commissioner of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review
Commission since April of 1994 and has dedicated her career to mine
worker safety and health issues. Previously, Jordan was senior
staff attorney for the United Mine Workers of America from 1977 to
1993. In that capacity, she was responsible for directing litigation
under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act, and advised the United
Mine Workers of America of relevant changes in legislation and case
law. Jordan earned her B.A. from St. Boneventure University in
New York in 1971 and a J.D. from Antioch School of Law in
Washington, D.C. in 1976.
The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (FMSHRC)
was established by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977
(Act). The Act, enforced by the Secretary of Labor through the Mine
Safety and Health Administration, governs compliance with
occupational health and safety standards in the nation's surface and
underground mines, both coal and metal/nonmetal. The FMSHRC is
responsible for deciding cases brought pursuant to the Act by the
Mine Safety and Health Administration, mine operators, miners or
their representatives. These cases generally involve review of the
Mine Safety and Health Administration's enforcement actions including
citations, mine closure orders, and proposals for civil penalties
issued by violations of the Act. The Commission also has
jurisdiction over discrimination complaints filed by miners and their
representatives. The term for Ms. Jordan, who is one of three
members serving on the five member Commission, expires on August 30,
1996. By statute, Jordan cannot serve as a holdover, and therefore
must be reappointed as a member and designated chair at the
time her term expires.
-30-
--
Nigel Allen ndallen@io.org http://www.io.org/~ndallen/
Subject: Re: New groups - discussion - response to Oilver Seeler
From: oseeler@mcn.org (Oliver Seeler)
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 06:39:39 GMT
Richard Adams wrote:
[Snip snip excessive quotations of already requoted material ... a
habit this poster has not learned to control...]
>Interesting that in Oliver's previous post
>at top above he says,
> "There has never been nor will there
> be any "discussion" with me."
>...and now Oliver says,
> "Adams has never attempted to communicate
> with me."
>You post something, I post something. You
>read it, I read it. Who cares if its in
>the first person or not? We communicated.
Yeah, I post 36 lines, Adams posts 97; I post 23, Adams posts 900. I
am not addressing Mr. Adams, rather what he represents; and I hardly
think the endless boring but dangerous delusional spoutings are
directed at me - rather, they are directed at the group, eh?
>Digging through Oliver's long post a few
>posts ago, I found one comment that perhaps
>he thought of as a negative aspect of the
>proposal where Oliver says,
> "I have only one application for this
> newsgroup - the rapid and free exchange
> of ideas and information concerning
> earthquakes, and Adam's proposals - all
> of them - are detrimental to that end"
>WRONG! The existing groups ca.earthquakes
>and sci.geo.earthquakes are not changed by
>what I'm proposing. Nothing I've proposed
>will cease your ability to have the rapid
>and free exchange of ideas and information
>concerning earthquakes. The existing
>groups will still be there as they are.
>Where does my proposal say that the
>existing groups are changed. Doesn't
>it say quite the opposite?
Bullpuckey. The creation of these new groups will further erode the
population of the existing groups, and Adams knows it. As Ian has
pointed out, many of the ca. groups have withered away entirely
already, and this one (ca.earthquakes) shows signs of lethargy.
Adams' feeble hope is that a cadre of tight-assed "serious" students
of earthquakes will march out of here to gather around him and his
limp flag in the sterilized environment he's trying to create. The
effect would of course be detrimental to this group - when there is
something real to discuss, for example an earthquake (does anyone
remember earthquakes?), the impetus & momentum to bring such
discussion here will be lost.
>So Oliver's comment isn't a negative aspect
>of what I'm proposing, its just something
>that he either missed in the proposal, or
>made up to strenghten his attack against
>my person which he admits is his target.
No no, not his person - I thought I made that clear - rather,what a
specific personality as applied here represents. Maybe that's
splitting hairs - if someone wants to consider this as a personal
attack, I'm not going to argue the point. As for making things up -
whew, what a comment coming from this source!
>If you don't want me as the proponent or
>"moderator", go a head and find another.
I don't want anyone as a proponent or moderator - Hands Off Usenet!
(snip)
>Sure there are various "personalities"
>involved in the discussion. After the
>discussion is finished and the vote is
>taken, all relevance of the personalities
>will vanish. The useless current attacks
>against the personalities will be forgotten
>while the documents recorded are the real
>result which will live on.
Nothing much will live on, because the only document will be the
record of the failed attempt of a megalomanical personality to impose
itself in a destructive and disruptive fashion on a nicely functioning
and useful newsgroup. There will be some benefit, however; no doubt
some of the folks who have watched this display and are now beginning
to understand what's really up here will be more alert the next time a
cute little skunk sidles up to the chicken coop.
Wearily,
Oliver
Subject: Shallow-depth electrical prospecting and software for DC.
From: "Eugene V. Pervago"
Date: 4 Sep 1996 11:44:49 +0400
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia, Moscow, 119899, MSU, Faculty of Geology, Dept. of Geophysics,
Phone and fax: (7-095) 939-49-63, E-mail: JOHN@GEOPHYS.GEOL.MSU.SU
The laboratory of shallow-depth electrical prospecting
of geophysical department at MSU Geological faculty
The scientists of the laboratory are developing algorithms and
computer programs for decision of forward and inverse problems of
resistivity method. The program's products: IPI-1D, IPI-2D, IE2DL
are widely known in Russia and are applied in many countries abroad.
IPI-1D - is a set of programs for processing and
interpretation of VES data within the framework of
horizontally-layered models.
IPI-2D - is a set of programs for processing, visualization
and interpretation of VES data along profiles, received with the
Total Electrical Soundings technology (TES), developed in MSU.
The IPI-2D programs effectively work in 2D inhomogeneous media
and in horizontally-layered media, as their application allows to
suppress distorting influence of near-surface inhomogeneities (NSI
or geological noise) and as a result to increase considerably an
accuracy of interpretation.
IE2DL - the set of the programs for VES data modeling in 2D
inhomogeneous media. IE2DL programs are used for study of
influence of typical inhomogeneities, to choice of an optimum
technology of investigation, to develop interpretation technology
in inhomogeneous media and etc..
Except programs already listed above, our specialists
developed some programs for modeling, studying, visualization and
interpretation of resistivity data in anisotropic media
(anisotropic half-space, two- and multi-layered media with
anisotropic bedrock and for vertical contact of two anisotropic
media). There are also modeling programs for the case of 3D
inhomogeneous media, for inhomogeneous 3D objects in the
half-space and in layered medium.
There are programs of modeling and interpretation of the
electrical soundings data measured on aquatorias for the cases of
floating, bottom and vertical arrays for bottom layers' sounding.
We can model the distribution of electric current lines and
potential isolines in 2D inhomogeneous media. This modeling help
to imagine better an electrical field behavior in inhomogeneous
media and select the optimal technology for such media study.
The investigations of a topographic effect of the earth-air
boundary over inhomogeneous 2D media are also executed.
The main sphere of our practical interests - is the decision
of complex engineering-geological and geoecological problems. The
laboratory has experience of field researches of ecological,
permafrost, archaeological, engineering and ecological objects
(pollution by petroleum, waste deposits, study of low-amplitude
tectonics on the surface over coal deposits, study of a subsurface
at the side of profiles of investigation, including that under
buildings, research the surrounding of pipelines and so on).
We have an experience of researches on shallow-water and
deep-water rivers and ponds, so in walking variants and from
different vessels.
On territories with complicated conditions of electrodes
grounding it is possible to apply special technology of electrical
sounding or profiling without galvanic contacts. This technology
was developed by B.G.Sapognikov (St.Petersburg) and advanced in
MSU. Non-grounding electrical prospecting can be used both in
summer, and in winter seasons.
On any question, mentioned in the present message we can give
the additional information. It was published in three monographs
on resistivity method, in numerous scientific publications. There
are also advertizing information and the detailed instructions to
the sets of computer programs, both in Russian and English language.
==================================================================
Please, ask directly by E-mail
Best regards,
Eugene Pervago
Subject: Re: Religion of science and science of Relligion
From: Jeremy Huffman
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 22:57:06 -0700
Richard A. Schumacher wrote:
>
> >>> > : In all seriousness can anybody identify a current complex life form in a
> >>> > : transitional state. I would think that we have many examples of this
> >>> > : phenomenon in our midst out of the tens of million different species on our
> >>> > : planet. Please do not cite single celled life forms since there is no
> >>> > : question that these mutate to adapt to their surroundings. I am looking for
> >>> > : something like monkeys with feathers, dogs with scales, birds that spin
> >>> > : webs and have eight legs, ...etc.
>
> Any species which is not in perfect equilibrium with its
> environment is probably evolving. Since most environments are
> not static, most species are feeling some degree of evolutionary
> pressure. Even if the non-living components of an environment
> are static, the ecosystem (the living components) is almost
> always not static ("arms races" between predators and prey,
> sexual selection, etc.). Therefore most species, as we see them
> now, are transitional forms, since their descendants' norms will
> not be identical to the existing norms. (If they have descendants,
> that is: species which don't happen to keep up with the changes
> in their environment, such as those due to global warming, will
> become extinct.)
>
> As examples of species which have apparently been nearly static,
> I'd pick great white sharks and horseshoe crabs. Their gross
> anatomies have not changed in 100 million years or more. But
> they may be feeling pressures now, and their biochemistries
> (evidence of which rarely fossilized) may have evolved
> significantly.
Good response, but I'd also like to add (and I think this will answer his
question more directly) many species (including humans) have what are
called vestigial body parts. For instance, some snakes have what look
like diminished hip bones, since they evolved from reptiles. Humans have
a tailbone. There are many other examples of this sort, which show that
animals are in a constant state of evolution. Although I think humans
have achieved a static environment. Any evolution in our species will
have to come from genetic engineering.
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: mwfisher@cts.com (Michael W. Fisher)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 01:00:56 -0700
In article <322CE1CB.2539@cerca.umontreal.ca>, Pascal Tremblay says...
>
> One, you didn't provide any counter argument to mine. It is nice to
> brag about book you read but it is more convincing to diliver at least
> some of the substance that it contains.
The "authors argument" consumes 858 pages of text. The format is
designed to enhance readability so the material which would have been placed
in footnotes in a more formal work has been placed in a "Notes" section in the
back, which consumes another 31 pages. The bibliography consumes 72 pages and
contains, at a very rough estimate, 600 entries.
The "authors argument" includes the history of biological thought from
the time of the ancient Greeks through the modern synthesis and also treats
philosophy in general as it relates to mans attempt to learn and its impact on
science, as well as the philosophy of science in particular.
Ernst Mayr is one of the towering figures in 20th century science in
any discipline.
He spent ten years writing his book. What he has to say worth reading,
and reflecting on.
> If I am so ignorant and my
> argument so primitive, it should be very easy to demolish my arguments.
Since this is posted to talk origins, their are many who will be doing
such of that as may be required.
> Yet I believe I have pointed toward a flaw in Darwin theory. That
> doesn't mean it is totally wrong and do not represent any facet of the
> nature of biological evolution.
This simply demonstrates then, that you haven't done your homework.
> Now concerning your rather agressive tone of voice, I must say that in
> my point of view it shows more about your state of mind (read level of
> evolution ... social, phisolophical, emotional, ...get it?) than your
> knowledge and keen intellect ( I am not judging your intellectual
> ability but only pressing upon you that agressive emotional reactions
> are no substitute for logic ...)
>
When someone demonstrates that he has failed to even study a field
sufficiently to understand the body of work which stands behind the main
theories of that field, why should I pretend that taking such a position
commands respect, particularly in a medium in which it takes a fair amount of
time to make a reply?
> Although biological evolution is not my field of expertize, I think I
> have a right to express my opinions and have a tendency to expect people
> to respond kindly and with intelligent arguments.
>
Well, as has been said elsewhere, the right to have an opinion is not
the right to be taken seriously.
If some twit (thats a technical term for a really obnoxious ignoramous)
were to wander into your office/class/ whereever you do what you do and
insisted that you support him in his dispute over the patent office's refusal
to process his patent for his perpetual motion machine, how much patience
would you have?
> By the way, while I am at it, what is your scientific background as a
> law student? It is my experience that lawyers tend to speek loud
> ...among other things my father is a lawyer (and I know many others).
>
Let's see. I was only a humble electronics technician in the U.S. Navy,
but I CLEPed or SSE'd [College level examination program and Single Subject
Exam's] out of 66 hours, with all but one score in the top 10% to get my
associates degree, without special preperation and by taking the tests in as
compressed a time frame as available--which tends to show that I learn well on
my own and retain what I learn.
And I've been reading in all fields of science since, oh, about 6th
grade. Still have my subscription to SciAm.
So I'm not a professional, but I know a damn site more about more
different subjects than most, shall we say.
> Dare to convince me using logic,
>
Logic, by itself, cannot prove anything. Logic, alone, merely shows
that the form of an argument is not fallicious such that, in a deductive
argument, the conclusion indeed follows from the premises, or that an
inductive arguments form is correct for the type of problem under discussion.
*REASONING* about a subject requires not only properly formed
arguments, it requires DATA with which to inform the premises.
And any field of study contains a significant amount of background
facts and/or presuppositions that must be understood before intelligent
discourse is possible.
And anyone who is making teleological arguments about modern
evolutionary theory doesn't understand what's going on at all.
Wander over to the liberal arts college and try and explain the Carnot
cycle and heat engines and why the maximum effeciency therby dervied for a
gasoline engine proves why the 200 mile per gallon carborator is a myth to a
class of drama majors.
Not necessarily impossible, but it'll surely be a challange for most of
the students.
Then try and imagine doing that over the internet via e-mail.
Get Mayr's book if you want to talk about evolution.
--
Michael Fisher, ET1/SS USN ret., lawstudent
http://www.sonoma.edu/cthink/Library/intraits.html
* * *
He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty,
he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
Thomas Paine
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: mwfisher@cts.com (Michael W. Fisher)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 01:01:24 -0700
In article <322CE55E.24D2@cerca.umontreal.ca>, Pascal Tremblay says...
> Bill Oertell wrote:
> >
> > > Theories of evolution that suggest that adapting to the environement is
> > > the sole motivation for evolution are necessery flawed because more
> > > complexe form of life are less stable than simpler form and yet life
> > > strive for higher complexity. Furthermore, those theories do not
> > > provide complete or remotely satisfying explanation of the mecanism by
> > > which transformation may occur (random genetic mutation is not an a
> > > complete explanation, but only a specullative one).
> >
> > This statement only demonstrates the complete ignorance the author
> > has on the subject of evolution. Evolution doesn't strive towards
> > anything. Rather, environmental changes allow certain pre-exisiting
> > mutations to become advantages, which in turn allows those mutations--or
> > recessive genes--to become dominant.
.
>
> I do not disaggrey totally with what you are saying, I am only
> pointing that although such mechanisms play a role they do not provide
> for a complete explanation. If you argument was bullet proof, life
> would indeed be involving in the direction of increase stability.
Evolution has NO DIRECTION.
Your use of the word "stability" is not informed by any biological
mechanisms or theories.
Evolution does have at least these five things:
1. Various gene pools which are self correcting/replicating
information storage systems.
2. A resevoir of variation within any particular information
pool.
3. A low but persistent error rate in gene replication in spite
of the self-correcting machinery of the storage medium.
4. An environment which is stable over the short and medium
term, but which undergoes steady persistent change over the long term.
5. An occasional disaster which upsets the equalibrium state of
the total system.
Since the genetic systems of organisms are self correcting, they are
very stable, information is conserved over very long periods of time, i.e.,
random mutations--which would in most cases cause a loss of information which
if it occured in the data carrying part of the gene would normally be leathal-
-do not occur often enough to disrupt population vitality.
All copies of the gene's in a population are not identical, and each
variation in some degree affects the phenotype of the mature organism, which
may (though not necessarily) affect the organisms ability to survive and
reproduce for good or ill.
The error correcting mechaisms are not perfect, so errors in
transcription do occur. They are not speculative. They have been measured in
many species, and form one of the basis for cladistics. The rate of mutation
of certain sites (such as the codons for cytochrome-C) is well established and
used as a marker for determing times of divergence of evolutionary lines.
Now, normally these are lethal, or of no consequence--at least in
stable environments. But this does mean that new information can enter the
information pool. It is not completely static.
Since the environment is fairly stable, the fact that new information
enters a gene pool only (relatively) slowly is not fatal.
Since the environment does shift (mountain ranges rise and fall, seas
open, continents drift across the equator to the poles and back), there is
adoptive pressures both directly from changed climate, and also from invasions
of other genuses, as when two continents long seperated collide and two
distinct floras and fauns are now in direct competition.
And every so often the slate has been wiped almost clean for new
"experiments".
Now, life has existed on earth as far back as the oldest rocks that are
available on the surface. Life has survided a shift from a reducing atmosphere
to an oxidizing atmosphere, comet impacts(the Yucatan and the end of the
dinosaurs), continents drifting from equator to pole, massive vulcanism
(deccan traps in India), cyclic Ice ages, and much else.
Just how much more damn "stable" do you want it?
Are you concerned with species extinction? In biology, just as in
business, the professions or academia, specialization generally leads to
greater success. A neuro-surgeon makes a whole lot more money than a general
practitioner. But specialization carries a price---if the environment (the
economy, the technology) changes, you can be renedered obsolete almost
overnight. People who wrote COBOL programs for the old discarded main-frame
computers can retrain to handle PC's, a species, traped by the stability of
it's own genome and its specialized phenotype can't willfully remake itself.
Now, if someone (something) were to design an organism from scratch to
be a survivor they might include such capabilities, along with all the
necessary data and activating and enabling algorithims in the code.
However, since life has simply evloved in situ, on it's own without
anyone taking notes to design a super organism, each species has to work with
the only the code it already has, and "takes it's chances" (to risk some
teleological language) with the tendency to over specialization.
> They
> might be a need for a bacteria to mutate to survive in its environment,
> but stretching this argument to make the simples life form evolve toward
> such complexe biological form as mammals, for exemple, is quite a
> gigantic extrapolation
The mistake of teleology again. There is no direction. No life is
evolving "toward" anything, or ever has.
If more complex phenotypes, i.e., multicellular organisms, have
appeared over time, it is because the higher level of organization confers
some survival and reproductive advantages which exceed any costs--at the time.
A DC-3 is a much simpler and therfore more reliable ("stable"?) and
much less expensive machine to maintain and operate than a 747.
But given a choice between flying a 747 or a DC-3 to Japan from
Montreal for regular cargo/passenger service, which one do you think will get
the most customers? Do you thing the DC-3 would be competive in that market?
Now there are unique challenes, perhaps, for multicellular organisms
vs. bacteria, for mammals vs. insects. And only so much sunshine falls on the
earth each day, and that determines the upper bound for available energy for
all life. And the larger the organism the more energy it needs so the wider
the area it needs to be able to collect energy from--and the more complex its
operating program needs to be.
So as you climb the complexity/size scale, the number of organisms
keeps decreasing.
> (one of the good way to screw up in science,
> another good one, which relates her, is to apply a theory tested on
> subset of phenomenon to superset of phenomenon. Like applying Newton
> laws to the very tiny ... quantum mechanics is a living proof of that
> this kind of approach is dangerous.
The data which leads to the formulation of quantum theory was not
available to Newton, and the faliure of classical mechanics to account for
some specific problems is what lead to the development of quantum theory.
The utter failure of any other theory to account for the development
and distribution of species is what lead to and continues to reinforce
evolution. Nothing else works.
Read Mayr's book.
Ciao.
--
Michael Fisher, ET1/SS USN ret., lawstudent
http://www.sonoma.edu/cthink/Library/intraits.html
* * *
He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty,
he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
Thomas Paine
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: Johnny Marr
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 12:22:36 -0700
Pascal Tremblay wrote:
> Second, I do not disaggrey totally with what you are saying, I am only
> pointing that although such mechanisms play a role they do not provide
> for a complete explanation. If you argument was bullet proof, life
> would indeed be involving in the direction of increase stability. They
> might be a need for a bacteria to mutate to survive in its environment,
> but stretching this argument to make the simples life form evolve toward
> such complexe biological form as mammals, for exemple, is quite a
> gigantic extrapolation (one of the good way to screw up in science,
> another good one, which relates her, is to apply a theory tested on
> subset of phenomenon to superset of phenomenon. Like applying Newton
> laws to the very tiny ... quantum mechanics is a living proof of that
> this kind of approach is dangerous. By the way, don't flame me on this
> one, I took a course in quantum mecanics.)
The only reason that Newton's laws proved unusable on the quantum scale
was that it was contrary to evidence at that scale - electron _not_
spiralling into the atom by being a waveform, photoelectric effect,
diffraction of "cathode rays" i.e. electrons.
Physicists (I nearly said "we" then, but I'm only a first-year) were
quite right to attempt to apply Newton's laws to the microscopic; and
equally right to dismiss them as useful on that scale when they broke
down.
Evolution is found to fit the past and predict the future of allele
densities in populations, so it has been extrapolated successfully.
You say that evolution shouldn't favour increasing complexity... well
this a very simplified argument that will probably attract me flame after
flame...
Imagine there's one gene, whose presence allows arms to develop, and
which absence denies development. An organism starts off without the
gene, and some mutation gives a strain of it the gene. If the two strains
are in the same environment, which one is more likely to survive, in
general? And which one is the more complex?
--
Johnny Marr - wadh0269@sable.ox.ac.uk
Webpage at- http://www.wadham.ox.ac.uk/~jstacey
I left the North again, I travelled South again
Subject: Re: Complexity Unstable (was Creation VS Evolution)
From: hines@cgl.ucsf.edu (Wade Hines)
Date: 4 Sep 96 11:55:13 GMT
Popelish writes:
>Pascal Tremblay wrote:
>>
>> Theories of evolution that suggest that adapting to the environement is
>> the sole motivation for evolution are necessery flawed because more
>> complexe form of life are less stable than simpler form and yet life
>> strive for higher complexity. Furthermore, those theories do not
^^^^^^
Look at those lion cubs Marth, I think the one on the left is "striving"
to evolve.
Sorry, there is no striving for complexity. It's more like, complexity happens.
>> provide complete or remotely satisfying explanation of the mecanism by
>> which transformation may occur (random genetic mutation is not an a
>> complete explanation, but only a specullative one).
I'm afraid you are rather ill informed about evolution but that doesn't
stop most from spewing forth all sorts of wild speculation.
>I agree with your assertion about complex forms being less stable. The
Ever heard of buffers?
Are yeast more or less stable than bacteria?
>more complex a life form is, the more specialized it is and the less it
>is unable to survive ecological upheaval. That is why there have been
>many mass extinctions in the past, but fewer single celled lines were
>wiped out than more complex forms.
Really? How would you know? How many bacterial species in an acre of
soil? How many have been lost in an ice age?
I wouldn't dispute that specialization can be a dangerous strategy
if one looks in a geological timescale, but in lesser timescales
it works real well. Meanwhile, complexity and specialization aren't
as lightly linked as is being implied.
>I hate to tell you this, because I suspect you may believe that you are
>the pinicle of creation if not evolution, but you are a freak. All
>multicelled forms are freaks; rare mutatants that represent the
>freakiest fringe of the possible on the bell curve of life.
And I'm freakier than you.
>Bacteria have ruled the world since they first existed, and continue to
>rule the world, uninterrupted to this day. This applies to total number
>of types, total number of individuals, total biomass, total ecological
>niches occupied and adaptability as you say. So what is your point.
>The fact that nature is so vast and allows a tiny number of freaks to
>survive at the fringe of "normal" life is not negative evidence that
>evolution produces species suited to their environment.
>Just another freak:
>John Popelish
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: moleary@dmu.ac.uk (Mark O'Leary)
Date: 4 Sep 1996 12:16:28 GMT
In article <504d7g$46n@gibelet.nexen.com>,
Mark Christensen wrote:
>If I might add my two cents, being a recent subscriber to this group and
>one who would like to see some moeration:
>
>What you describe below is NOT evolution but natural selection. There is,
>indeed, a difference. You see, the dark moth already has the genetic
>makeup for dark wings. Even though the light moths got eaten, the dark moths
>in no way evolved...they simply became more prevalent.
The point you are completely missing is that the penetrance of the two forms
changed. The reason for there being more dark moths is not *just* that the
light ones are being eaten, its *also* because the light moths tend to
produce more light offspring. That *is* evolution.
> If you were to shoot
>every individual born with blond hair for the next 100 years, you'd get
>a huge population of brunettes or redheads, but not because they evolved.
But if you continued it for a 1000 years, you would eventually not have
to bother with buying more ammo, because there wouldnt be any more blonde
children born. Evolution at work. Change of gene frequency with time under
selective pressure.
>Now, if you threw those people in the water for the next 100 years and they suddenly
>developed webbed feet and there was no gene for webbed feet initially
>present, then THAT would be evolution.
Thats a personal definition of evolution. Evolution is change in gene
frquency in a population over time.
That said, if webbed feet conferred a selective advantage, that adaptation
would almost certainly arise if you ran the experiment long enough. I
actually went to Uni with someone who exhibited a random mutation that gave
him webbed feet and fingers - he still had the scars along the insides of
fingers and toes where it had been cut away when he was a baby. Presumably
if he'd been born on Waterworld rather than in Barnsley, thisnchange
woudl've made him a much better forager and brood-raiser...
There *are* proofs of evolution where a new feature arises, but generally
only in creatures with a short enough generation time for us to observe it
happenening - such as resistance to novel antibiotics in bacteria. For some
reason creationists tend to say bugs are a 'specila case'. Do you? One
alternative you might consider is the development of "toxic sperm" in male
drosophila when the compensatory evolution of the females to remove this as
an advantage is inhibited. That occurs in just a few tens of generations.
> As far as I know, there is no observed proof of evolution. Mutation and
>natural selection do NOT qualify.
See the t.o FAQs. There is ample evidence of evolution - even of your
twisted version of it.
> Now, let's get on with making this newsgroup the forum for what it should
>be. Thank you.
Heh. Perhaps you should follow the basic rules of a newsgroup (like reading
the FAQs before posting, and thus having some idea of what evolution
actually *is* for instance) before making ex cathedra pronouncements like
this.
Next.
M.
--
-=-=-=-=-=- -.-. .- .-.. .-.. -- . -.-. --- --- ... .-.-.- -=-=-=-=-
Mark O'Leary, Voice: Extn. 6201
Network & Communications Group. Email: moleary@dmu.ac.uk
De Montfort University, UK.
Subject: Re: Utter Futility of Arguing With Creationists
From: moorej@cfw.com (JeffMo)
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 12:54:37 GMT
mccoy@sierra.net (John McCoy) wrote:
>Viejo (tomitire@vegas.infi.net) wrote:
>It is utter futility for atheists to argue with creationists, because
>atheists are wrong. You can't win an argument if you are wrong, and that
>is why atheists constantly veer away from my posts and that's why you
>admit that it is utter "futility" to argue with us.
Of course, I'm sure the "atheists" believe exactly the same about you.
I am neither atheist nor creationist, so why not explain to me what it
is that you feel the atheists are "veer[ing] away from."
I think the primary problem I have with creationists is that their
arguments always imply that somehow the evidence of evolution that we
see in our world around us is somehow faulty and that we can never
understand (in our own little way) details of the wondrous way in
which we were all created.
To me, that points to a very limited and contradictory vision of God.
Even the creationists should admit that we were created in the image
of God, and that we were given this world to live in and explore. To
imagine that God would give us a world to explore that we can never
understand, seems to me to paint a picture of God very different from
the one with whom I have had direct contact.
Also, to insist on a literal interpretation of the "6 days, 6000 years
ago" hogwash, seems to me to be an expression of ultimate hubris on
the part of creationists. If God decided to create our universe by
simply setting into motion our little neighborhood ("universe") with
all of its natural law and observable order, including Big Bang-type
cosmology and evolution, who are the creationists to say that he
*didn't* do it that way?
JeffMo
Subject: Re: Chicxulub structure and dinosaur extinction
From: ethan@grendel.as.utexas.edu (Ethan Vishniac)
Date: 4 Sep 1996 13:46:36 GMT
In article <50fp9v$3jq@nntp.stanford.edu>,
Chuck Karish wrote:
>In article <50fiao$ce8@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
>Ethan Vishniac wrote:
>>
>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Deccan traps exactly opposite
>>the Chicxulub structure 65 million years ago (within the error introduced
>>by estimating continental drift rates)?
>
>No, they weren't. Undoing continental drift would probably
>move the Deccan Traps farther from the antipode of the
>Chicxulub structure, not closer to it. The speculation
>that the Deccan Traps were due to the antipodal focusing of
>the energy from a meteor impact was done before the
>Chicxlub structure was identified, so the proper location
>of the postulated antipodal volcanism was not known.
>
>The Deccan Traps may have been adjacent to the structure
>ringed by the Seychelle Islands when they were formed.
OK, I found the source of my confusion (or information, depending
on how you look at it. :-)).
I've been looking through a book `Dinosaurs, Diamonds, and Things
from Outer Space' by David Brez Carlisle. The author is a geochemist
and is described on the back leaf as `Chief Scientist of Environment
Canada'. (I don't know anything about this organization.) I met
him when I gave a talk at the University of Toronto a few years ago.
The publication date for his book is 1995.
In the chapter on `Bolide Impacts and Vulcanism' he gives the current
coordinates of the Deccan traps as 13 to 20 N and 75 to 80 E, and the
impact center in the Yucatan as 20 N 87 W, both of which sound about
right.
He then adds that the Yucatan is moving west (slowly) and that India
is moving north (more rapidly), both of which are right.
Then he says that their positions at the time of the impact (circa
65 million years ago) were at 20 N 84 W (Yucatan) and 21 S 95 E
(Deccan traps, the center?). Of course, these numbers are almost
precisly antipodal. He doesn't say where he got these numbers from,
but his book doesn't have the density of footnotes you'd expect in
a professional publication. It's a popularization of his ideas.
The positions he quotes would require India to have moved north at an
average speed of a bit more than 6 cm/year.
"Quis tamen tale studium, quo ad primam omnium rerum causam evehimur,
tamquam inutile aut contemnendum detractare ac deprimere ausit?"-Bridel
Ethan T. Vishniac ---> http://grendel.as.utexas.edu/Welcome.html
Dept. of Astronomy also Associate Professor of Astrophysiology
The University of Texas G.G. Simpson Hereditable Chair of Evilution
Austin, Texas, 78712 University of Ediacara
ethan@astro.as.utexas.edu `Knowledge, Wisdom, Beer'
Subject: Re: Mars Life Scam Rigged By NASA, NSF
From: Jim Kelly
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 10:18:32 -0500
Kennedy wrote:
>
> In article <322C6EA8.5791@mindspring.com>, Richard Mentock
> writes
> >In article , Kennedy
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >transistors,
> >> William Bradford Shockley : England.
> >> John Bardeen : US
> >> Walter Brattain : China
> >
> >Hey. What the hell kind of name is Brattain?
> >
> >What are you guys arguing about? Are you sure?
> >
> Yep, he was born in Xiamen, China, Feb. 10, 1902.
> _______________________________________________________
> Kennedy
> Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
> A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
> Python Philosophers
Kennedy, you are a vortex of complexity that
has no source of energy other than what you
pull from the reality(or people within) that
you orbit.
Have fun looking that one up in your
almanac! :-)
--
Best Regards,
-Jim Kelly